Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_70.04.20MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1970, AT 7:30 P. M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:36 P. M. BY CHAIRMAN NOBLE. ROLL CALL - Present: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Watters and Chairman Noble. Absent: Comm. Himmel, Stabler, Toole. Motion by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger to approve the minutes of the April 6, 1970 meeting. Resolution P. C. 154-770 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach denying the request of Elyse Aehle, et al, for a change of land use zone from R-1 to R-2 on pro- perty located in the 2100 block of Loma Drive. Comm. Watters moved, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger to accept Resolution P. C. 154-770. AYES: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Watters and Chairman Noble. NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Himmel, Stabler, Toole. Z-70-1 Continued) Request of James Fucile for a change of land use zone classification from R-1 with C potential to R-3 on lots 20, 21, 22, Hermosa View Tract No. 1, located at 731, 737, 739 - 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, under provisions of Article 15 of City Zoning Ordinance N. S. 154, as amended. City Planner Crawford said that the Commission had received reports from the Fire Chief and Police Chief indicating that the change of zone itself would not increase any existing hazards, although it was felt that two parking spaces per apartment was essential for the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Crawford displayed three maps indicating the protests, existing zone and requested zone. He said the protests were based on congested parking on 21st Street from the existing apart- ment house complexes and the irresponsibility of the tenants in these units. Comm. Mulfinger asked when the city zoned the area C potential. Mr. Crawford said it was done in 1956 in order to encourage commercial development. Since this has not developed, it is now felt that apartment buildings could be acceptable. -2- Public hearing opened: 7:46 p. m. Mr. Francis Carney, 730 - 24th Street, presented photographs of Springfield Street showing congested parking due to the present apartment house. Comm. Collis asked Mr. Carney which he felt was more desirable, an apartment complex or a commercial development, and Mr. Carney favored commercial. Mr. H. R. Besant, 2207 Pacific Coast Highway, felt that if the lots were used for an apartment complex, the remaining lots on Pacific Coast Highway would not be deep enough for the eventual commercial development which the City had planned. Mr. George Yorg, Realtor, 1026 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, spoke in favor of the building, saying that it would cost in excess of one-half million dollars, have two parking spaces per unit, elevators, recreation area, pool, landscaping and in the front of the building, nine additional parking spaces would be provided on the street for guest parking. He said the building would attract pro- fessional people and bear a tax load of $14, 000 to $17, 000 a •year. He rebutted the arguments about congestion, parking problems, improper usage of property, commer- cial zoning, and vested interests of neighboring property owner. Mr. Jack Chernov, Architect, 5274 W. Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, 90019, ex- plained the quality of the proposed building, tandem parking and parking machines; recognized the parking problem existing in the neighborhood, and invited everyone to visit similar apartment developments which he had designed in other areas. Mr. Besant commented that often planned parking spaces are subsequently used for other purposes, such as storage, laundry uses, etc. Mr. Joseph Mundy, 740 - 24th Street, objected, making the point that his view to the south would be completely eliminated by an R-3 building like the one proposed. Mr. Hugh McCormick, 640 - 21st Street, questioned whether the existing utilities could support the structure, specifically water pressure. Mrs. Hugh McCormick, 640 - 21st Street, felt that the new seventy-one unit apart- ment complex on Ardmore, together with the anticipated addition of seventy-one more units, would be difficult enough to absorb into the area. She also mentioned that the north side of 21st Street is posted "No Parking" and doubted that the developers could install nine parking spaces on the side of the street. Richard Parker, 2110 Borden Avenue, said that the parking is the No. 1 problem in Hermosa Beach, and the addition of more apartments would intensify it. He didn't feel that the tenants would contribute to the total life of the city, and said that even though parking was provided, he still felt they would park in the street. Public hearing closed: 8:25 p. m. -3- Chairman Noble summarized the points brought up in the hearing: traffic, agree- ment with the General Plan, utilities, benefit that it would bring to the city through attraction of a certain caliber of people. He said the Commission should consider the need or lack of need for additional apartment units in the area, the effect of separating the C potential on the west from the C-3 properties on Pacific Coast Highway, and the commitment implied if the change is made. Comm. Collis commented that in his opinion this zone change would create spot zoning, and he thought it would behoove the property owner to talk to the owners of the commercial lots. The Planning Commission is charged with proper planning of all areas of the City, and cutting off the C potential, leaving shallow (115') C-3 lots was not proper planning. He agreed that R-1 was not a proper use, but sug- gested the entire block of land from Pacific Coast Highway to the back of the C potential should be changed at once, if changed. Mr. Yorg said that the General Plan refers to the area as capable of any use, resi- dential, commercial, etc. He felt that the apartment house would be the best use for the land. Comm. Watters questioned whether the time for this type of development is now; whether it wouldn't be better to wait until after certain capital improvements are accomplished such as street widening. Comm. Mulfinger wondered how the area ever would develop commercially under separate ownerships. Comm. Collis said he wasn't ready to make a decision changing the zone of just these lots at this time. Comm. Watters agreed that the Commission would have to determine the impact on the whole area before moving contrary to past planning. Comm. Watters moved, seconded by Comm. Collis, to approve the subject request to change zone from R-1 with C potential to R-3 at 731-739 - 21st Street. Motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Comm. Mulf finger NOES: Comm. Collis, Watters, and Chairman Noble. ABSENT: Comm. Himmel, Stabler, Toole. Resolution P. C. 154-771 Comm. Watters moved, Comm. Collis seconded, to adopt Resolution P. C. 154- 771 denying the request to change the zone with C-3 potential to R-1, 731 - 739 21st Street for the following reasons: 1. The findings of the Planning Commission concur with petitions of residents in the area protesting additional R-3 uses at this time. 2. This type of development at the present time, dine to stfeee"id -And Q_f4stra"* stai; a-dsr would increase problems for the residents in the area. 3. At the current time there is no need for additional high density residences in the area; in fact, such would be detrimental to proper growth. 4. If this zone change were accomplished, it would cut off C potential to the west, lessen the planned commercial depth of Pacific Coast Highway lots, when there actually exists a need for commercial property of substantial depth in the city. The Resolution was approved by the following vote: AYES: Comm. Collis, Comm. Watters , and Chairman Noble. NOES: Comm. Mulfinger ABSENT: Comm. Himmel, Stabler, Toole. Chairman Noble informed the applicants that the action is final unless they appeal to the City Council, within ten days. Chairman Noble suggested a special Study Session to review the planning of this area. Conditional Use Permit (Contessa Ceramic City Planner Crawford said that this business had been given a Conditional Use Permit in December, 1968, and was reapproved in April, 1969 for a one year period, which has expired. There were initially five conditions, two of which have not been met. Although a parking area has been created, it has not been properly delineated. The landscaping has not been completed. Mrs. Dorothy McEwen, new operator of the ceramics yard, said that they now were in a position to open the yard seven days a week, and although she had planned to have the landscaping finished, she had broken her leg which had delayed it. With someone on the premises regularly, they could now see that the cars stored on the parking area were removed, and be able also to keep the landscaping watered. Comm. Collis moved, seconded by Comm. Watters to extend the Conditional Use Permit for another year, but review again in sixty days to allow the applicant time to fulfill the conditions as originally stipulated with additional recommendations below. 1. The paved area at the intersection of 6th and Pacific Coast Highway be signed "No Parking" and barriers be erected to prevent the illegal parking of vehicles in said area. 2. That the legal parking area be signed "Customer Parking Only" and the storage of vehicles by the body shop prevented. If necessary, by barriers during closed hours. -5- 3. That landscaping be accomplished, and the business open during normal shopping hours within sixty (60) days. 4. That an extension of the Conditional Use Permit be granted for sixty (60) days, at the end of which time, unless the conditions are met, the permit may be revoked. AYES: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Watters and Chairman Noble. NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Himmel, Stabler, Toole. C-69-6 (Vern Maynard) City Planner Crawford said that Mr. Maynard has apparently adhered to all of the ten original conditions and he could see no reason for not approving a continu- ation of the permit. Comm. Collis moved, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger that the C. U. P. , C-69-6 be granted on a permanent basis, subject to the same conditions. AYES: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Watters and Chairman Noble. NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Himmel, Stabler, Toole. Resolution No. N. S. 2954 (City Council). City Planner Crawford explained that the resolution requested revision of procedure portions of the Zoning Ordinance and that the City Council had also suggested a modification of minor variance procedure should be created. Comm. Watters suggested that a meeting be held with the City Council to discuss this resblution prior to setting a date of public hearing. The Commission concurred. No decision was made regarding a date. Adiournment at 9:16 p. m. to North School for a meeting with the Hermosa Beach School Board. The meeting with the School Board convened at 9:30 p. m. City Planner Crawford reviewed aspects of the General Plan dealing with land areas assigned to the School District and questioned whether they would ever avail them- selves of the entire amount. He said the Planning Commission would like to know the School District's thoughts in order to reevaluate their needs in the future. He offered the suggestion that the School District consolidate schools, and free the Pier Avenue School site for commercial development. Discussion followed covering: the relationship of the cost of housing and income; antiquated school buildings and their effect on the philosophy of neighborhood schools as opposed to an educational plant; assessed evaluation; rezoning of cer- tain areas to relocate the schools on cheaper land; high rise and the reduction of school age children; also, reduction of people in child producing bracket. It was discovered that school population had decreased from 2, 100 in 1962 to about 1,700 in 1969. The reasons for this decrease appeared to be rising living costs and decrease in single-family housing inventory forcing young families out of the city. The problem of low student enrollment in each of the schools was dis- cussed. Unified school district attempts of the past, and possible future new sys- tems of education were explored. The Commission and Board agreed that considerable revision of the General Plan was needed, and that additional meetings would be held. Adjourned: 10:37 p. m. The next meeting will be May 4, 1970. Certification I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes have bee p oved by t e Planning Commis ion of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regAar eet a on the 20th of April, 3< Q i Jt Z//e' / jot NOBLE, CHAIRMAN JAMES'`D; COLLIS , SECRETARY